—-— GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS OF NATIONS INTRODUCTION Professor; Atty. Bong Lopez Reference: Finer, S.E. (1974) Comparative Government, Middlesex, England: Penguin, GOVERNMENT (Latin: “gubernaculum," a rudder, gubernare, to steer, direct, control) 1. denotes the activity or process of governing,i-e., of exercising a measure of control over others. eq. The "government" of smaller states is usually easier than the "government" of large ones. 2. denoting the state of affairs in which the activity or process is to be found - in short, a condition of ordered rule, This was common in the 18th century. eq. In Bentham’s BOOK OF FALLACIES (1824); "Attack us (the rulers) and you attack "government." __ 3. densting those people charged with the duty of governing. This is the most common usage. eq, The Ramos? "Governnen 4. denotes the manner, method or system by which a particu- lar society is governed. eq. comparative "government", form of "government" POLITICS (Here the distinction is not just semantic but substan— tive.> A vast area of human activity and conduct in society pro- ceeds quite unregulated/uncontrolled by the public authorities. Three (3) modes by which society forms its own pattern and regu- lates itself: 1. There is a class of actions which may be left to the individuals, themselves =SPONTE ACTA (Bentham) eq. You don’t need to forbid people from buying in the dear— est market and selling in the cheapest market. Nobody will do that or he will be bankrupt. 2. SOCIALIZATION (with which is associated the concept of “social contract") ~"Socialization" describes the way by which, as we grow up in our society, we are led to absorb the ideas, the beliefs, the tastes and aversions and standards of the groups in which we find ourselves: the families, friendships, schools, clubs, churches, profession, etc. These standards are said to have become internalized. 3. Government, however, even in those where th2 activity of such governments is at its maximum (totalitarian states), there is still a vast area of human affairs which continues to regulate itself. The routine execution of agreed social policies is govern~ mental, not political. There is government, but no politics. GOVERNMENT, (in the process of governing), has 2 elements: 1. choosing a course of action= POLITICS 2. and carrying it out.The first element connotes Politics. Not all government activity is political. It may be routine administration. ADMINISTRATION-per formance of executive duties (management). Now, life is full of predicaments. Politics flows from a special kind of predicament. It connotes a kind of activity, a farm “ot human behaviour Wt" involves interaction of two or more persons. In this sense, POLITICS is a social form of human be- havior. Political behavior has been generated by religion, mor- als, economics, etc. What distinguishes Politics from Economics? It is the origi- nating predicament, Of course, one type of social predicament can be co-mingled with another type of social predicament. One may be from an economic point of view, the other from a political point of view. Human beings are a mixture of motives. Requisites to create a political predicament (which gives rise to political activity): 1. That a given set of persons of some type or other require a COMMON POLICY (common course of action). (Here, a predicament exists.) 2. that its members advocate, for their common status, policies which are mutually exclusive. If it?s only #1, (i.e. somebody proposed a common policy) without #2 (which means that everybody agrees), there is no political activity. It is purely governmental activity. #1 creates a predicament, but it is #2 which gives it a political character, i.e. which of the "mutually exclusives” shall be cho- sen. Without #2, it is only simple administration. However, if there’s #1 and #2, it gives rise to political activity. But once unanimity is achieved, then you have a POLITI- CAL REST. : In other words, if you have a SPONTANEOUS UNANIMITY, there is no political activity. How is it possible? By PAST PRESSURES-either by socialization or by deliberate governmental conditioning or brain-washing (Indoctrination)-that members become to think alike. However, there is a problem in the use of the word "sponta~ neous." Past pressures can validly qualify to be a mode to achieve spontaneous unanimity. But if the mode being applied is by using EXTERNAL PRESSURES (On the one hand, thru rewards and punishments; on the other, by propaganda and persuasions? then unanimity here cannot be considered spontaneous. Spontaneous unanimity must be without external prerssures. Therefore, if external pressures are applied, there’s no spontaneous unanimity. And since spontaneous unanimity did not become possible, there exists political activity, thru the use of persuasion, coercion, etc. Unanimity here is artificial. Predicament: If the choice is "reduced to one," the predica~ ment is solved. How do you achieve this? 1. Use of persuasion, reasoning, diplomacy, or a consequent series of adjustments (Method of compromise), affection, etc. The predicament, therefore, generated political activi- ty, until a consensus is reached. Once a consensus is reached, there is political rest. 2. threats, coercion, etc.Here, each one tries to make his policy prev. m the others. But here, although the predicament if Possiedg,-Yer still leaves the competitors performing their original policies acquiescing for the momant in the victorious one. They aaery acquiesce because they agree but because they were ferced te agree. Therefore, there is no political rest yet. Poitticss activity continues,i.e., the effort to alter the policy adopted — and this will not be ended until a consensus is reached $n the matter. A poner “the capacity to achieve desired results." In this sense, therefore, POLITICS is the exercise of power. It implies the use of any or every modality in the whole spectrum, not just sanctions’ end (punishments) of the scale. It ranges’ from the LOVE that an individual evokes on others to the FEAR of death he may induce in them. Of course, DESIRED RESULTS can also be induced by the AU- THORITY of the actor. Therefore, "authority" is also a source of Power. One agrevs because he considers a person as an agent of a Higher Power (God/Reason/Progress) or because the decree of the Person exercising it is conducive to Happiness/Wel fare/Greatness. Hence, the greater the authority, the less need to employ the other modes of power. That is why it is said that it is better to command not by your might but by your Authority. People must feel that they have a moral duty to obey you. Authority represents a two-way process: 1. A claim to be obeyed and 2. A recognition that this claim is morally right. No public recognition of a claim means no authority. Accord~ ing to Rousseau, "The strongest is never strong enough unless he succeeds in turning might into right and obedience into duty." POLITICAL PROCESS-the set of procedures whereby the private associations within a state seek to influence the government, or to participate in the policy formulation by the government, or to become the government itself. To inculcate the people with the belief that their rulers have the right to demand obedience and they the corresponding duty to give it is THE PRINCIPAL ART OF GOVERNMENT. Authority depends upon MRIANDA and CREDENDA of power. (According to Charles Merriam’s "Political Power", 1934, Chapter 4, Illinois: Free Press) MIRANDA - things that arouse favorable emotional responses (things to be admired) CEDENDA - the rationalizations that contain the reasons which oblige the intellect to give assent (things to be believed) 1. CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY-Sometimes, it is belief in the actual, alleged or presumed extraordinary quality of a person. (According to Weber). Eq. Hitler, hero-worship 2. TRADITIONALISTIC AUTHORITY-rule that rests on such piety for what actually, allegedly or presumably has always existed. Eq. father is the head of the household; lord over his serf; prince over his subjects. 3. LEGAL AUTHORITY/PROCEDURAL AUTHORITY-based on certain rules and the offices/officers created under them.In order to avoid political instability, government o have a POLITICAL FORMULA. Without a political formula, government will rely more on coercion. The history of political thought is a cemetery of political formula. A new one always replaces the old ones. Until it achieves a certain degree of perfection. 1. Divine Right Formula~(Seller;| 12 laf Charles IfjLouis XIV of France) et eee 2. Social Contract-that relationship between ruler and ruled was a tacit and mutual understanding of a contractual nature by which the ruler ruled the population provided that he fulfilled sertain conditions for them, i.e. a breach of the conditions by him would void the contract, and thus justify rebellion. (Rousseau Hobbes, Locke) 3. Patriarchal/Matriarchal Formula~state is an expansion of the family (to 4 clan, to a tribe, to a nation, which is the ethical basis of the State) (Sir Henry Maine, Ancient Law) 4. Instinctive Theory-politcal institutions are but the objective expressions of the instinctive of men for association. (Aristotle, Politics: Man is by nature a political animal"; Cicero, Commonwealth: “The first cause of association was ndt so much the weakness of man as the spirit of congregation which naturally belonged to him.") 5. Economic Theory-the State was created. primarily to take care of man’s multifarious needs. (Plato, Republic: "Quing to our many wants, and each seeks the aid of others to supply his vari- ous requirements, we gather many associates and helpers into one dwelling place and give to his joint dwelling the name of city.") 6. Historical/Evolution Theory-(Burgess) The State is the product of history, out of a grossly imperfect beginning, through érude but improving forms of manifestation, towards a perfect and universal organization of mankind. 7. Majority Rule-rule of the whole population or, if not possible, rule of the majority of the people. (Jefferson) 8. Special Part of the Population Rule- "proletariat/Volk" (Marx; Engels? One way to attack the divine right of kings would have been to argue that what the Bible said was not true, or alternatively, that it was true but had been misintrepreted in this particular respect. In the 17th century, this was attacked only to be re- placed by the social contract formula. Today, the contract formu~ la is also dead. It has given way to the notion that the will of the population as a whole or, in default of unanimity, a majority of the population, is the sole moral basis for exercising power. In some countries, however, even this has become outmoded because it is argued that the will of only a special part of the popula~ tion can provide the moral basis for the exercise of power proletariat or the Volk. Critics of the economic theory attacked it om the ground that we are reading in the past, forces and conditions which did not exist. Where a political formula is challenged and replaced by another, the moral authority of the government which rests on it is, by’ the same process, also challenged. In such cases, the ment has three (3) choices: wea To adapt itself to the new formula, or at least try do so (if adaptation is possible); if not, then either of these two,2. To rely increasingly upon coercion or 3. To abdicate WHY HAVE GOVERNMENT? Government is a response to political predicaments, i.e., to situations where the group (State) in question has to adopt a common policy (common course of action), but where rival bodies of members advocate policies which are mutually exclusive. To secure a common policy, the condition of self-division ‘must be replaced by one of unanimity. The creation of this admittedly artificial and it may be fragile unanimity is effectuated by the exercise of POLITICAL POWER, ranging from affection and persuaq sion at one end of the spectrum to coercion at the other. Govern~ ment, as an arrangement for taking the common decision, defines and channels these exercises of power. Government is regulator of society. Since the form. procedures, scope of government differ from one society to another (as these had developed under different political formulas), therefore, there is a need to study COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT. Comparative Government tries to establish first the HOW, then, if possible, the WHY. Thus, this brings us to the study of the hows and whys of GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS OF NATIONS, developing and developedINTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE POLITICS Atty. Bong Zepol wity COMPARE? 1. Comparison helps us understand ourselves. Rudyard Kipling once asked: "What should they know of land who only England know?” By Looking at the way others govern themselves, we can better understand zi F'understand our origins and values, am sicogite ea wenkmesson cf sur aun syaten ef governacnt. | 2. Comparison helps us understand our own societies. To avoid the risk of iting th istakes. Ei commiting the same mistakes. Eq. USA in Vietnam war. If onle USA understood Southeast Asia, they might not have so humiliatingly lost the war. 3. Comparison helps us understand the global system. John Donne said: "No man is an island, entire of itself. Every man is a piece of a continent, a part of the main.." We are locked into a global economic and political community whose interdependence grow by the day. 4. Comparison helps break down ethnocentrism. Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes said: "What US does best Is to understand itself. What it does worst is to understand others." Know the problems of others and the way others see the world. 5. Comparison broadens our options. Studying other political systems can show us how similar problems are approached in different ways by different govern~ ments and perhaps helps us change or improve the way we do things here at home. Eq. health care; anti-terrorism; enviroument. 6. Comparison helps us draw up rules about politics. It can help us understand the trends and underlying princi~ ples of politics and political change. COMPARATIVE POLITICS Involves the study of the similarities and differences among and between political systems. WHAT ARE WE COMPARING? We may compare ideas (democracy, socialism), processes (participation, recruitment), or nations-states (China,Palestine) HOW DO WE MAKE THE COMPARISON? al approach Vertical approach (States, nations) or Hortz (institations, processes, values, theories). HOW CAN WE SYSTEMATIZE A COMPLEX WORLD? January 1994, there are 192 sovereign independent the recent Inclusion of Eritrea (but still with the number, as of date, has inre~ pond to 193, The field of comparative politics is currently in’ a aiete of disarray. This does not mean that it is disinteresting- i 'fne contrary, comparative politics 1s the broadest and most Ratiaiging, (sebrisid Ju ithe study of Holitical sulence, Tp Shalyzer all the world political systems in a comparative way. As of states. With border dispute with Ethiopla), eHOW ARE STATES CLASSIFIED? 1 Continentas Aste:Afrion south America,North America,Australla, Geography: East-West; North-South; Far East; Middle Fas Cold War: First World, 2nd World, Third World, Fourth World Regional; Latin America, Sub Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia Economie Indicator: developed, developing, underdeveloped countries Economic and social development (James Danziger): more devel- oped countries, newly industrialized countries (NICs), post Communist developed, Islamic Mid East, developing countries (which ts further classified by economic development level: low income -per capita income of $80-600, Vietnam; Mid-income $630- 2370, Philippines; Mid-income upper -$2940-7050; high income- above $7050) 7. (John McCormick): liberal democracies (US, UK), communist (Cuba, North Korea) & post-communist states (Russia), NICs (Mexico, Singapore), less developed countries (Ecuador), Islamic World (Iran, Saudi Arabia), Marginal States (Eritrea,’ Rwanda), Micyostates (Vatican City, Belize) Near APPROACHES/METHODS OF COMPARING? TRADITIONAL National Character Study: a traditional approach that at- tempts to capture the essence of the people's political culture. Each nation's politics is unique. It combines facts and values to develop theories of the political process. In the 20th century, it studies the history, Institutions, and processes of individual countries ~ "the cases" -CASE STUDY. It analyzes the structure of the state, elections, political parties, interest groups. They described institutions without comparin, them except the contrast between democratic and authoritarian regimes, par- liamentary and presidential systems, unicameral or bicameral legislatures. It focuses on the historical evolution of political institutions. CRITICISM: Non-comparative, descriptive, parochial, static. Structural-Functionalism Approach (Talcott Parsons): an ap- proach that seeks to explain the nature and function of public organizations. It identifies variables common to all organiza- tions such as complexity, production, efficiency and Job satis- faction. It develops a more general political theory by identi- fyint. the key functions and then tind the political structures which perform them (commonality and generality). Example: Politi~ cal systoms - its business is to translate the wants and desires of the relevant public Into public policy. To this function Includes input and output functions. Input Function: 4. political socialization - the process whereby people learn the system's political values and thelr role in the system. Eq, children in a democracy learn the impoortance of voting and speaking thelr minds; children in a tribe learn to 7 ain. obey chlor siitical recrultment- refers to how people become part leaders are chose thru birthright3. Interest articulatioon ~ refers to the demands made by levant public (how they get in the political agenda) 4, Interest aggregation ~ involves bringing together differ- ent interests and demands behind a common front. 5. Political communication - serves all the above imput functions. They all occur thru some form of ‘communication. the r Output Function: 1, Rule making 2. Rule application 3. Rule interpretation/adjudication | By knowing these functions, we also look for the "political stureture". Eq. Democracy, presidential; republic. Other Traditional Methods Case Study Enumeration Method Paired Comparison Modeling + Logic of Implications Methods of Theory Building BEHAVIORAL To explain how people act and why. Why do people politically behave as they do? (Seymour Martin Lipset, Robert Dahl) And why, as a result, political processes funtion as they do? SYSTEMS ANALYSIS (David Eaton) The behavioral approach has a revolution— ary impact. Eq. It studies why people vote the way they do. It also does not give value judgment. This approach also utilizes the SURVEY RESEARCH METHOD by operationalizing Its dependent and Independent variables. (Gabriel Almond, Sidney Verba, James Coleman) Criticism: It 1s "pure sclence” approach. It rejects human- ism and important normative (Values) question on politics. It lacks substance and overemphasizes on study methods. Micropolitical Analysis~ studies the smallest political unit - the individual as a thinker and actor in the poltical world. (Angus Campbell, Warren Miller, Donald Stokes, Joel Migdal) POST BEHAVIORAL This is one which makes value judgments that guide the researcher, It uses scientific and other techniques to increase knowledge on the subject, and then becomes advocate of social change based on the new knowledge. It compares politics of dif- ferent nations and states. Political Development Approach: This refers to the political systems evolve over time. If we want to know why nations are democracies and others dictatorships, (Barrington Moore, Arend Lipjhart) wo study how the political system devel- ops: ‘technology, political, socio-cultural, eco-ethnic factors. Tt includes the process of coping with "crisis" (Crisis Approach) that all nations experience: democracy and authoritarianism; wealth and poverty; stability and political change. It is a more dynamic approach because unlike structural-functlonalism method, it explaind "political change. G) aCrisis Approach: (Lucien Pye, Sidney Verba) 1, Crisis of Identity- It centers on the question: How do individuals and groups describe themselves politically? There 1s a need for citizens to develop a NATIONAL IDENTITY. Eq. Benazir Bhuto-sacked in Pakistan; Marcos ousted in RP. 3. Crisis of Penetration-reters to a government's ability to enforce its decision in all geographical regions and at all levels of society. Eq. In Mindanao; tax laws in the elite. 4, Crisis of Participation-it involves two dimensions of participation: Ast, the amount of participation (How many voted?) 2nd, the type of participation (It 1s possible that a small number of demands put considerable streas on the system. Eq. MILF, RAM, ABB. worere oC gist eABVTIOD 5. Ertsis of-naitVotpation: ‘These are economic problems like food, medicine, water, housing and power whichare not equitably distributed. Criticism on Pol. Dev Approach: By late 1970s, democracy had collapsed in much of the developing world. In Latin America, 17 of 20 states became military dictatorship while In Southeast Asia became soclalist-author\tarian (Domino Principle). What went wrong? Why democracy did not begin? Two theories were offered to answer these questions: 1. REVISED MODERNIZATION THEORY - many of our traditional values (rituals, personal relationship, famlly ties) were hostile to the values required to modernize economy, society and govern ment, Attitudinal factors short-circuited the development pro- cess. Solution offered: Cultural change. (David Apter, Edward Shils, Huntington, Parsons, Pye, Almond, Coleman, Verba, Robert Merton) 2. DEPENDENCY THEORY - It contended that barriers to devel~ opment stemmed from the results of integrating developing nations into the Internationalist capitalist economy.. Ultimately, this integration led to economic and political exploitation of the third world by the developed countries (Gavin Kitching,Althusser, Fernando Henrique Cardozo, Enzo Falleto) Two torces worked to throttle eco-political development: 4. The first Lnvolved impersonal economic forces stemming from the dependent country's reliance on only a few (sometimes, only one) exports and reliance on only a few trading partners and suppliers of aid. Eq. Ghana exported only cocoa. . ar2, The 2nd involved the influence of multinational corporations who pursued their own economic Interests In opposition to the national interest of the developing nation. Criticism on dependency theory: Today, two empirical ob servations have discredited the dependency theory: 4. Economic growth is occuring even in the poorest of countries. 2. Many of the dependent countries have moved toward more open and democratic political systems. QUERY: Is [political democracy the end of the developmental process? (Kilchi Ohmae suggested the "end of nation-state while Francis Fukuyama the "end of history,” George Schultz a “decline of sovereignty.” Criticisms on development approach: Biased and ethnocentric tor the following reasons: 1. Critics focused on the Western developmental experlence as a model for political development. (Same criticism on struc~ tural-functionalism approach.) 2. As to time, developing countries today face different problems from the problems that the West faced during its devel- opment (Gunnar Myrdal). 3. The international context Is different today compared to earlier eras (Agricultural and industrial revolutions) (Alvin Tottler). 4. The Western bias in the development literature had a Cold War basis. Political develoment had to proceed along the path to democracy to keep the developing countries out of the communist camp. 5. The Western bias to develoment actually harmed the devel~ opment. process in many countries. It led to the destruction of many. traditional institutions Iike extended family, tribal and clan groupings which could have provided the social and cultural glue necessary to bridge the transition to more modern institu- tions. 6. There is no development end-point. Political change is cyclical (Samuel P. Huntington). Countries both develop and deeay. Eq. Soviet Union's collapse ts an example of pylitical decay. Recent Theory: Political Democracy may yet to prove to be an end of political development. (Lipset, Juan Linz, Larry Diamond, Walt Rostow). Reasons: 1. The world political culture is clearly in favor of democ~ racy. 2. Authoritarian, military regimes or Marxist-Leninist sys- tems were discredited (Arnold Toynbee). 3. United Nations, as well as developed liberal democracies detended democracy and human right. Politics Model Method: defines Individual actors as engaged in a dynamic process with institutions that thelr behavior serves to reinforce, to modify or to overthrow. This political process centers on the practical confrontation of Individual persons as they, debate or negotlate {ssuos that Involve distribution | of goods and evils of 1ife; and of the rules controlling both di tribution and overall govenance 4)Other Behavioral and Post behavioral Methods 1. Analytical Induction ("Bringing the State Back" - Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschmeyor, Theda Skocpol) Bureaucratic Authoritarfanism - (Guillermo O'Donnell) + Turkey Village - (Daniel Lerner) Stages of Economic Development - (Walt Rostow) Practorjanism-Military (Huntington, J. Gus Liebenow) Coral Reefs of Human Relations (Immanuel Wallerstein) - Political Soclology (Jan-Erik Lane, Avante Ersson, Michael Rush, Calvert) 8. Moral Economy (James Scott) 9. Political Economy/Bell Tower (Samuel Popkin) 10. New Institutionalism (James March, John Olsen, Elinor Ostrom) 11. Historical Institutionalism (Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Steinmo, Frank Longstreth) 12. Concrete Theory (Ruth Lane) 13. Causal Theory/ Iron Clad Thaory/ The Law of Oligarchy/ Empirical Observations/ Evaluating Theory (Robert Michels) 14. Middle Range FunctionalTheory (Robert Merton) 15. Iconoclastie Function (D. Lasswell, Abraham Kaplan) 16. Cultural Rationality Model (Pye, Verba) 17. Logic of Implications 18. Pirsoner's DillenmaCOMPARATIVE POLItics STRUCTURAL -FUNCTIONALISM/TRADITIONAL APPROACH Almond, Gabriel A. and James S. Coleman (uds.), Thu Politics ef the Developing Areas, Princeton: Princeton University Pre 1960, [Also, Political Development /Modernization Theory] Parsons, Talcutt. The Social System. NY of Glencoe, 1981 Theory] The Free Press [Alse, Political Development /Modernization THE BEHAVIORAL REVOLUTION Almond, Gabriel A. and Sidney Verba. The Civic Culture. Princeton; Princeton University Press, 1963. (Survey Research] Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller and Donald E Stokes. The American Voter. NY: John Wiley & Suns, 1964 (1860). [Microplitical Analysis] Dahl, Robert. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an Amerd can Clty, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961 Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. NY: Harper & Row, 1957. [Political Economy Approach] Euston, David. The Political System: an Inquiry into the state of Political Science. NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1933 A Systems Analysis of Political Lite. NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1965. (Systems Approach] Lipset, Soymour Martin. Politcal Man: The Soctal Basis of Politics. N¥: Doubleday Anchor, 1959. [Political Sociology] POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT: ITS RISE, DECLINE AND TRANSFORMATION Althusser, Theory] Foy Marx. London: Penguin, 1969. [Dependency Apter, David E.. The Politics of Modernization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965, [Modernization Theory] Cardoso, Fernando lunrique and Henzo Falleto. Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkely: University of California Press, 1979, [Dependency Thoery] Elsenstadt, S.N.. Tradition, Change and Mode: Wiley, 1973, (Modernization Theory] ty. NY Huntington, Samuel P.. Political Order in Changing Socte~ ties. New Maven: Yale University Press, 1968. [Modernization Theory /Mi1ltary-Praetorianism] Kitching, Gavin. Class and Economic Change in Kenya. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980, (Dependency Theory] La Palombra, Joseph. "Penetration: A Crisis of Guvernmenta Capacity," and "Distribution: A Crisis of Resource Management; In Levnatd Binder, et.al, Crises and Sequences In Political Development (pp. 205-282). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971. [Crises Theory]Page 2; compa.pel. Lerner, Daniel. The Passing of Traditional Society: Modern tzing the Middle East. NY: Free Press, 1958. [Turkey Village} Linz, Juau J. & A, Stepan (Eds.). The Breakdown of Democrat te Regimes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. Merton, Robert K.. Social Theory and Social Structure (Revised and enlarged editions, 1957). NY: The Free Press, 1949 ([Middle-Range Functional Theory) Moore, Banrington Jr.. The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: [Lord & Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966 Putnam, R.. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993 Pye, Lucien and Sidney Verba (Eds.). Political Culture and Political Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. {Crisis Theory/Rational Choice Theory/Modernization Theury/ The Cultural Rationality Model] Rostow, Walt W.. The Stages of Economic Growth. NY: Cam bridge University Press, 1960. (Stages of Economic Revolution} Shils, Edward. Political Development in New States. s'Gra venhage: Mouton, 1962. [Modernization Thoery] Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World System 1: Capitaliet Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the 16th Century. NY: Academic Press, 1974. [Center, Periphery, Sem!— Periphery Approach/Coral Reefs of Human Relations] COMPARATIVE POLITICS RECONSIDERS THE STATE Evans, Peter B., Dietrich Rueschmeyer & Theda Siocpol (Eds.) ‘ambridge University Press [Analytical Induction] Lane, Jan-Erik & Avante 0. Ersson. Politics and Society in Western Europe. Newbury Park: Sage, 1987 (2nd ed., 1991) {Politi eal Sociology] Lijphart, Arendt. Democracy in Plural Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977. Democratic Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934 Mitchell, Timothy. "The Limits of the State: Beyond Statist Approaches,” American Political Sclence Review, LXXX, no. 1 (March 1981): pp. 77-96. O'Donnell, Guillermo. Bureaucratic Authovitarianism: Argen tina 1966-1973 in Comparative Perspective. Berkely; University of California Press, 1988. [Bureaucratic Authoritarianism] Skocpel, Theda. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. NY: Cambridge University Press, 1979.page 3; compa.pol ANALYTIC INSTITUTIONALISM: STATE AND SOCIETY AND THE NEW INSTITUTIONALISMS Lane, Ruth. "Concvety Theory: An Emerging Political Method, American Political Science Review 84, no. 3 (September 1990): pp. 27-940. [Concrete Theory] Liebenow, J. Gus. African Politics: Crises and Challenges. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. (Military Role In Atrical | March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. "The New Institutional- ism: Organizatjonal Factors in Political Life,” American Politi cal Science Review LXXVIII (1984), pp. 734-749. [New Institution- allsm] i Migdal, Joel S.. Strong Societies and Weak States: Stele Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Thirc World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. [State-Society Approach (Melange Model) /Microanalysis/Strategies of Survival Concept} Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evelation of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge Univers- ity Press, 1990. [Rational Cholce Theory in New Institutionalism} Popkin, Samuel L.. The Rational Peasan Economy of Rural Seciety in Vietnam. Berkely: University of California Press, 1979. (Political Economy Thesis of Universal Distrust (Hobbesian)/"Bell Tower”) The Political Scott, James C..The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975, (Moral Economy/"Sandy Soil} Steinmo, Sven, Kathleen Thelen and Frank Longstreth (ds.). Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (pp.1-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, (Historical Institutionalism) OTHER THEORIES IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS Laswell, Harold D. and Abraham Kaplan. Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry. New Haven: Yale University press 1950. (Iconocl;astic Function] Michels, Robert. Political Parties: A Sociological Study uf the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (1915). NY+ 1959. [Causal Theory/Iron-Clad Theory. ical Observations/Evaluating Theory] Dover /The Law of Oligarchy/Empir- Miarda, H.J.. New Directions in Comparative Politics. Bould= er: Westview Press, 1985. “No universal theory in comparative politics. A universal theory will be inapplicabl e tovany actual situations thus cossia erably dimialshing their ability to guide to cesesren en reigns; a;tith tine. The Art uf Comparative Pelition ghis: Allya and Bacon, 1997, (Enumeration Method/Semeene Method/Palred Comparison Method/ Case Studies’ Model tae meiied, Tradl tional Approach/"*Dumb* ‘Theortzing/Theory ae Garage Mo ekee qulty/Logle of tapllcationsy wethods of Theory Buttaise /medds- ange Functianal Fusory: A Post Behavioral. aporoseh see eet Dilemma"/"Polities Model") . a ven Needham